The numbers 7 and 8...right next to each other in order..so easy to mix up when reading.

I totally thought this whole thing was about 8...couldn't tell it was about 7 at all...

The title misleads everyone into thinking this is about Windows 8. It obviously has information about Windows 7. But... I'm not talking about this. I'm complaining about the title and saying that it is poorly written and obviously it is, that's why so many people got confused over this.

You can see that you actually didn't exactly read what I wrote, but in this case, it was not poorly written because that's only one simple critic, not a whole article talking about numbers and projections that are pretty vague.

It says Windows 7 in the first sentence. And second. And fifth. This is not exactly heavy reading.

Yeah. The OP obviously set it up so that people would come into this thread thinking they'd read about (disappointing) sales figures of the current Windows version (8), otherwise he would have included the version number in the title. It was clearly his intention to mislead in order to make a point. The point being that disappointing early sales, or at least not meeting your early sales target doesn't necessarily mean longtime failure (duh!).

The title misleads everyone into thinking this is about Windows 8. It obviously has information about Windows 7.

It does? I don't see a number listed in the title...and since it is mentioning that they only hit 1/3 of projected sales I would assume it is related to the longer released OS.

I knew it was about 7 just from the title since they wouldn't know if they hit or missed any sales projections yet since those are handled on a quarterly basis...and the quarter isn't anywhere near over yet...

Then again...that's just common sense talking...

Yeah. The OP obviously set it up so that people would come into this thread thinking they'd read about (disappointing) sales figures of the current Windows version (8), otherwise he would have included the version number in the title. It was clearly his intention to mislead in order to make a point. The point being that disappointing early sales, or at least not meeting your early sales target doesn't necessarily mean longtime failure (duh!).

Seems to have slightly misfired on him though.

As I mentioned just above...sales projections are based on the quarter...in other words 3 months. A month in they won't know if they hit their quarterly projections or not...so I knew it was about 7 from the title...

To Microsoft, have you ever heard of common sense? Tell me, why should I upgrade when my computer does everything I want it to right now? I can see why you would want to go from 98 to XP, but 7 to 8 - there's not much point (unless you absolutely want Metro). I only use desktop PCs - I find tablets to slow to work with.

To Microsoft, have you ever heard of common sense? Tell me, why should I upgrade when my computer does everything I want it to right now? I can see why you would want to go from 98 to XP, but 7 to 8 - there's not much point (unless you absolutely want Metro). I only use desktop PCs - I find tablets to slow to work with.

Huh...I could swear that I have 8 installed on my desktop and working just fine...otherwise this is one hell of a heavy non-portable tablet that uses a mouse and keyboard...

Story...singular...and it's Paul Thurrott. I've already explained this before. He cites no actual sources for the story, and just leaves it up to you to sort of assume he knows what he's talking about.

The problem is that PT hasn't actually really had any 'ins' at the company for quite some time now...due to the way he throws fits when he doesn't get all the insider access he wants.

In fact read the following excerpt from his update:

Those are simply my best guesses, not "facts," and certain debatable. But you can expect Microsoft to eventually release sales numbers for Windows 8, numbers that it will use to prove (or at least contort) that everything’s just fine.

That's my point...sour grapes...he admits what he says is just a guess, not a fact, and then goes on to say that Microsoft will eventually give numbers (because they haven't) to prove (or contort...because yeah PT is awesome and can use words like contort) that things are fine.

In other words (reading between the lines)...PT has no idea what is going on...is making a guess...and then states that Microsoft will lie...but claim it is truth in order to pat their own bruised egos.

Between the still-crappy economy, and the basically flat hardware requirements (compared to 7), what is there to drive either hardware OR OS upgrades - even assuming that Windows 8 were unchanged from Windows 7? (I'm citing Windows 8's critics, mind - my opinion on Windows 8 is known.)

Since when is a software upgrade determined by the hardware requirements? If it required more horsepower, then you wouldn't upgrade because your computer can't handle it, but if it's the same, then you would. Make sense? Unless you're counting new computer sales.

That's my point. If he actually had this 'source' he would know why. He wouldn't be guessing.

Sorry. I can't follow you there. Like he says, the explanations are debatable, there's not necessarily a single correct explanation that Microsoft (and/or his source) would know about. As far as I can tell, you're essentially accusing him of lying when it comes to his assertion that

Sales of Windows 8 PCs are well below Microsoft’s internal projections and have been described inside the company as disappointing.

No offense, but Microsoft has internally determined that Windows 8 is selling worse than expected. [...] it's an attempt to figure out what happened. Because it did happen.

Since when is a software upgrade determined by the hardware requirements? If it required more horsepower, then you wouldn't upgrade because your computer can't handle it, but if it's the same, then you would. Make sense? Unless you're counting new computer sales.

I didn't say it was - I said that there was an assumption with Vista (which was largely untrue) that it required greater hardware than XP. That was largely untrue; however, there was indeed bad hardware released during the Vista era.

The hardware requirements for 7 and 8 are absolutely identical - however, 7 is familiar as it changed little in terms of UI/UX from XP or Vista; that is, in fact, the ONLY advantage that Windows 7 has. 7 is vanilla - which is enjoying a return to favorability. Notice that I did NOT say that Windows 7 is a "bad" OS - merely that it's a "vanilla" OS. Windows 8 isn't a bad OS, either - it's just that some folks, after having tried the fancier *flavor* of Windows, seek a return to "vanilla" (7).